EFTA00230786

Date: 7/25/06 
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 
Time: 8:47:53 
Page: 
85 
Incident Report 
Program: CMS301L 
Case No 
• 1-05-000368 
(Continued) 
has been taken off the Jeffrey Epstein case because her husband is 
employed with Attorney Jack Goldberger. Attorney Goldberger is the 
attorney of record for Jeffrey Epstein. His previous attorney, Guy 
Fronstin, has been fired from representation. ASA Lana Belohlavek has 
been assigned the case. ASA Weiss stated she can no longer speak 
about the Epstein case with me. I thanked her for her telephone call. 
ASA Weiss further stated that ASA Belohlavek would be calling me. 
****************************NAREATI■ E 
# 4 ************************** 
NA 
Reported By: 
5/15/06 
Entered By.: 
5/15/06 
On May 10, 2006, information was received that Epstein's associate, 
Leslie Wexner, The Limited Inc, CEO's, plane had arrived in West Palm 
Beach, PBIA. The plane, a Gulfstream 4 bearing a N900LS registration, 
was on the tarmac at Galaxy Aviation. As Epstein had recently 
acquired the services of a new attorney, and the fact that Epstein's 
house is currently under remodeling, it was believed that Epstein may 
be in Palm Beach. I conducted physical surveillance at the residence, 
358 El Brillo Way. I observed a large construction crew conducting 
remodeling at the house. The contractor, David Norr, was observed 
driving a Ford E 
, white in color. The vehicle has a Florida 
registration of 
r left Epstein's house and traveled north 
on County Road. Det 
and I conducted surveillance on Norr. 
Norr traveled to several construction sites and check 
ertain 
jobs. Surveillance was discontinued on Norr and Det 
and I 
traveled to Galaxy Aviation. I observed the white plane with a blue 
stripe along the body and tail of the plane; the tail number was 
visible on the bottom of the tail, closer to the body of the plane. 
We maintained visual surveillance on the plane until 4:57 p.m., when a 
caravan of Cadillac Escalades drove onto the tarmac. We observed 
several people exit the vehicles and discovered that they were part of 
the executive team for Limited Inc. The executives were in Palm Beach 
County for an executive meeting for the day. They arrived in Palm 
Beach County on May 9, 2006 at 9:30 pm and were scheduled to leave on 
the 10th at 5:00 pm. 
On May 12, 2006, I met with ASA Lana Belohlavek at the State 
Attorney's Office. She explained that her boss, Barry Krischer, was 
requesting this case be taken to the Grand Jury again. I
o
her 
ted arrest warrants for Jeffrey Epstein, 
and 
sm I asked that she either issue the warrants or 
direct file, as II much time has elapsed since the original request to 
the Grand Jury 
_l__explained that the Palm Beach  Police Department--had---
concluded the case in December of 2005 and has been waiting for the 
case to go forward. Belohlavek stated the original offer was again 
offered to the new defense attorney. She was waiting for their answer 
by Friday May 19, 2006. She stated she would advise me of the answer. 
**************************** N A R R A 
# 45 ************************** 
NA 
Reported By: 
6/05/06 
EFTA00231006

Date: 7/25/06 
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 
Page: 
86 
Time: 8:47:53 
Incident Report 
Program: CMS301L 
Case No 
• 1-05-000368 
(Continued) 
Entered By.: 
6/06/06 
On Mali 
2006, I received several phone calls throughout the day 
from 
, who 
ed he had been followed aggressively by a private 
investigator. 
stated that as he drove to and from work and 
running errands t roughout the county, the same vehicle was behind him 
• 
other vehicles off the road in an attempt not to lose sight of 
vehicle. 
I explained to him as Mr. Epstein had retained new legal council it 
was possible it would be new private investigators following him to 
observe his daily activities. I also explained to him that there was 
a meeting scheduled with ASA Lana Belohlavek and Attorney Jack 
Goldberger at Mr. Krischer's office scheduled on June 1, 2006 at 9:00 
am. I attempted to call ASA Lana.galohlavek to inform her of the 
private investigators following IIIII however; she was on her vacation 
during the week of May 22 through May 30 2006. 
On May 23, 2006, I received other phone calls from Mr. and 
who 
advised they were able to acquire the private investigators license 
plate information. The 
t following them was again driving very 
aggressively and caused 
to run off the road. 
the vehicle is a green Chevy Monte Carlo bearing Florida tag 
The vehicle is registered to Zachary Bechard of Jupiter Florida. 
Bechard is employed with Candor Investigations from Jupiter, Florida. 
Bechard is a licensed Private Investigator in the State of Florida. 
Since the diacovery of the threat made against one of the victims in 
this case ( ) 
subpoenas for all calls made to and 
received from 
during the month of M 
her 
and home phone. I had confirmed with 
the exact dates of Spring Break for 2006. The Spring Break 
was from March 4, 2006 through March 12, 2006. I received a subpoena 
from Sprint/Nextel with all calls made during the month of March 2006. 
I reviewed the 989 calls made and received during the month of March 
2006. I observed on March 7, 2006, 
made and received thirty 
five calls during that day. 
Date 
Time 
Seconds 
7-Mar-06 11:03 AM 
492 
In/Out 
Outbound 
7-Mar-06 11:16 AM 
6 
Inbound 
7-Mar-06 11:22 AM 
887.2 
Inbound 
7-Mar-06 11:37 KFU--- 48 
—Outbound-
7-Mar-06 11:39 AM 
28.2 
Inbound 
7-Mar-06 12:02 PM 
727.2 
Inbound 
To/From 
561XXXX 
561XXXX 
561XXXX 
The table reflects the date of the calls, time of day (EST), duration 
EFTA00231007

Date: 7/25/06 
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 
Time: 8:47:53 
Page: 
87 
Incident Report 
Program: CMS301L 
Case No 
• 1-05-000368 
(Continued) 
of cal 
n econds, inbound or outbound calls and ca 
ade to or 
from 
ne. On March 7, 2006, at 11:03 am, 
made a call 
to the victim 
which lasted 492 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). 
The victim then returned the call a 
•16 am which lasted 6 seconds. 
The victim then made contact with 
at 11:22 am for 877.2 seconds 
(14 minutes and 6 seconds). These sequences of calls were consistent 
with what the victim had described to me on the date of the 
intimidati 
I 
' tely after speaking with the victim, 
makes 
a call to 
, Epstein's assistant, which lasts for
forty-eight seconds. A call is then immediately received, a telephone 
number registered to a Corporation affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein 
located at 457 Madison Ave in New York. An extensive computer check 
revealed 457 Madison Ave is a business address in which Epstein has 
his corporations assigned to. Epstein had corporation attorney, 
Darren Indyke, register the businesses and register himself as an 
agent. I also observed Epstein has his El Zorro Ranch Corporation, 
New York Strategy Group, Ghislaine Corporation, J Epstein and Company 
and the Financial Strategy Group registered to this same address. 
Finally, a third call is received by 
at 12:02 pm from the same 
corporate number which lasts 12 minutes and 1 second. It should be 
noted that there is no further contact with either the victim during 
the month of March or April of 2006. I also noted that there was no 
NA 
further contact with 
or Jeffrey Epstein during the 
remainder of the mont o Marc or April 2006. 
On June 1, 2006, ASA Lana Belohlavek telephoned me to inform me of the 
meeting that occurred with Atty. Jack Goldberger and her reference 
this case. She advised she would make her determination on whether to 
file on this case or not by Monday June 5, 2006. 
Inv Continues. 
MI 
****************************NARRA 
************************** 
Reported By: 
7/12/06 
Entered By.: 
A. 
7/12/06 
On June 29, 2006, I had spoken to ASA Lana Belohlavic who informed me 
that the case would be sent to the Grand Jury for charges. She 
informed me that the grand jury would convene on July 19, 2006 to hear 
the Epstein case. Belohlavic stated State Attorney Barry Krisher made 
the determination to go the Grand Jury to hear the case. 
On July 12, 2006, I spoke with 
mother of the victim, II, 
who 
inquired about the_atatus_o_f_the  _case. I explained rn  her that--I-was---
told we would be going to the Grand Jury during the week of July 19, 
2006. She stated she had not been contacted as of yet by the State 
Attorney's Office for any information. I provided her with the 
telephone numbers to the State Attorney's Office. 
Investigation continues... 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * END OF REPORT * * * * * * 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
EFTA00231008

EFTA00231009

07/27/2006 THU 18:22 FAX 
07/26/2006 15:44 
5610354700 
reiru Irunrnre 
fool 
A TRUE BILL 
IN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL 
CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 
For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the year of our Lord Two 
Thousand and Six, to-wit The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in end for 
the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. 
EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid. in the Circuit and State aforesaid. 
COUNT ONE 
FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION 
on or about or between the 1st day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and 
Four and October 31, 2005, did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit 
prostitution lewdness, or assignation, contrary to Florida Statute 796.07(1) on three or 
more occasions between August 01, 2004 and October 31. 2005, contrary to Florida 
Statute 796.07(2)(f) and (4)(c). (3 DEG FEL)(LEVEL 1) 
against the form of the statute, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace 
and dignity of the State of Florida. 
I hereby certify that I have advised the Grand Jury returning this indictment as 
authorized and required by law. 
State 
Assistant State Attorney of the 
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of the 
of Florldep-rosecuting 1W-the said --
Slate 
EFTA00231010

07/27/2008 THU 18:23 FAS 
07/26/2005 15:44 
5610354700 
PBPD 114-11NINd 
rm•a• 
0414,022 
GRAND JURY FOREPERSON 
DATE 
Jeffrey E. Epstein, Rasa* White, Sex: Male, DOB: January 20, 1953, 
Issue Warrant 
EFTA00231011

t4 1, k-0 ) 
gOckin 
EFTA00231012

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 peangl (O1)60  D.C. 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 
JANE DOE, 
aik/a JANE DOE #1, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
and 
Defendants. 
July 18, 2008 
STEVEN N. LARUAORE 
CLERK O.S. MST. CT. 
S.O. or FLA. • MIAMI 
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and 1332(e), the defendants, 
Jeffrey Epstein, 
, and 
hereby remove this action' from 
Palm Beach County Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Florida, and respectfully state as follows: 
Introduction 
Six months ago, this plaintiff filed virtually the identical lawsuit in this 
Court. Sec Jane Doc III v. Epstein, Case No. 08 cv 80069 KAM (S.D. Fla. filed 
Doe v. Epstein et at, Case No. 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX MB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. 
filed Mar. 6, 2008). 
Lewis "rein 
30S9GKAKAAviAut,Suin 340,EocoorutSkOvr,FFOROA33133 
1.1511 
EFTA00231013

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 2 of 100 
Jan. 24, 2008) (the "First Federal Action"). The First Federal Action named 
Jeffrey Epstein as the sole tortfeasor, made the identical operative allegations as 
the instant Amended Complaint, and demanded damages of $50 million. (The 
amount of the demand against Epstein is evidently the product of recent reports in 
the press that Epstein is wealthy.) 
The First Federal Action was quickly followed by a series of substantially 
identical "Jane Doe" lawsuits, all filed by the same attorney in a three-month span. 
Compare Jane Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed 
Jan. 24, 2008), with Jane Doe #2 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80119-KAM (S.D. Fla. 
filed Feb. 6, 2008) (asserting identical causes of action based on the same operative 
allegations), Jane Doe #3 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80232-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Mar. 
5, 2008) (same), Jane Doe #4 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80380-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed 
Apr. 14, 2008) (same), and Jane Doe #5 v. Epstein, No. 08-80381-CV-KAM (S.D. 
Fla. filed Apr. 14. 2008) (same). 
On February 20, amid these filings, Jane Doe 41 was deposed in State of 
Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502006CF009454AXXXMB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct., filed 
Jul. 19, 2006), a parallel state-court criminal action. During that deposition, she 
made numerous admissions that completely undermined the allegations against 
Epstein that she had pled in her complaint. A copy of her deposition, with names 
2 
Lewis -rein re. 
3059 Gump Avoduc Sum 140,CocoNa Gaon. Rota 33133 
2.0111 
EFTA00231014

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 3 of 100 
redacted, is attached hereto (Exhibit A). Two days later, counsel for Jane Doe # I 
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in the First Federal Action. 
See Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. 
Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 
refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two 
nominal defendants: 
Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and 
, one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defendants have nothing to 
do with the plaintiff's case against Mr. Epstein, except that the presence of 
as a defendant in this new case, because she is a citizen of Florida (Am. 
Compl. 114), would ostensibly prevent complete diversity.2
As discussed below, however, 
was named in the refiled 
lawsuit only to destroy diversity jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 
U.S.C. § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court . 3
2 
Defendant 
is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. ¶ 5), and is therefore a 
nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 
3 
Section 3509(k) of Title 18, United States Code, provides as follows: 
It, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for 
damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending 
which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the 
victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the 
criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal 
proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is 
pending until its final adjudication in the trial court. 
3 
3059 Gino Awing. Sun 340, [adu•Gtovt, km0,433)33 
344311 
EFTA00231015

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 4 of 100 
besides having nothing to do with the substantive allegations of the 
plaintiff's $50,000,000 case, is a community-college student with no assets 
whatever. 
Even if this case purports to identify a new (and strategically nondiverse) 
tortfeasor, the reified lawsuit is still directed against only one defendant—Jeffrey 
Epstein. Then and now, the operative allegations are the same: Jane Doe alleges 
that Jeffrey Epstein assaulted her "in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida 
Statutes."4 (Am. Compl. ¶ 18.) To sharpen her lawsuit, the plaintiff says she is 
seeking damages in connection with a "conspiracy" (Am. Compl. ¶ 22), a "plan" 
(Am. Compl. ¶ 32), a "scheme" (Am. Compl. ¶ 32), and an "enterprise" (Am. 
Compl. ¶ 32). These theories of liability, however, cannot be supported by the 
allegations in the Amended Complaint. Even if everything in the Amended 
Complaint were true, recovery against 
, under any formulation, is 
impossible under Florida law. 
Focusing on the real parties to this controversy, the instant case could have 
(once again) been brought here in federal court- just like the four other "Jane 
18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). 
4 Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, is entitled, "Lewdness; Indecent Exposure." 
4 
Lewis Tein n 
..., 
• 
3059 GRAM) AVINIR. Sum 340. Coccxyr Groa.Ftwo• 33133 
40311 
EFTA00231016

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 5 of 100 
Doe" lawsuits presently pending against Epstein, filed by this plaintiffs former 
lawyer. 
This case is properly removed to federal court, first, because there is 
complete diversity among the real parties-in-interest, second, because the amount 
in controversy exceeds $75,000, and third, because this Notice complies with the 
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. 
Discussion 
A. This case is properly removable because it falls within the original 
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Florida. 
A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, 
originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co.'. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 
(2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal 
district court, and it is the same case today. Even though it was reconfigured to 
look like a state-court lawsuit, this action falls squarely within the bounds of the 
diversity-jurisdiction statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (establishing that federal 
district courts have original jurisdiction over cases where the amount in 
controversy [is more than $75,000] . . . and [when the controversy] is between 
citizens of different states"). 
5 
Lewis 'rein ri 
3059GuADAvimist,Sunt 340,Caccour Gtove.ftota 13113 
5 d 316 
EFTA00231017

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 6 of 100 
1. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000. 
This case is a duplicate of the First Federal Lawsuit. In that case, Jane Doe 
pled "damages in excess of $50 million." See Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-80069-KAM 
(S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 24, 2008) (Compl. ¶ 6). That allegation is now deleted and the 
Amended Complaint substitutes a generic prayer for reliefs It is clear, however, 
that Jane Doe still seeks more than $75,000 in damages. 
This case, precisely like the First Federal Action, seeks damages in 
connection with an alleged assault. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16-19.) 
The Amended 
Complaint alleges that Jane Doe "has suffered and will continue to suffer severe 
and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological, and emotional 
damages." (Am. Compl. ¶ 19.) These are the identical injuries Jane Doe asserted 
in the First Federal Action, and are no less serious simply because pled under a 
state-court caption. Cf., e.g., Woods v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 523 F. Supp. 2d 
812, 820 (N.D. III. 2007) (determining, in the context of diversity jurisdiction, that 
the $75,000 threshold had been satisfied, and "clearly [surpassed]," based on "the 
nature of the injuries alleged" in the complaint). 
5 The Complaint seeks damages for "[more than] . 
$15,0007 (Am. Compl. ¶ 6.) This 
boilerplate is routinely used in Florida pleading practice to trigger application of section 
26.012, Florida Statutes, the statute that establishes the jurisdictional amount required for 
filing in Florida's Circuit Court (as opposed to County Court). 
6 
1...e364A1:Fi II rt. 
3059 Game Avow. Suns 340, Cocomo Gam, rims33133 
9 a/ 31$ 
EFTA00231018

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 7 of 100 
To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that 
"[wjhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from 
state court is proper if it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in 
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement." Williams v. Best Buy Co., 
Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). This case meets that standard, and 
satisfies the first prong of diversity jurisdiction. 
2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this 
controversy. 
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. 
Carden v. Arkoma 
Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the 
diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of citizenship." (citing Strawbridge 
v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs 
Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (1 1 th Cir. 2005) (stating that "[c]omplete 
diversity requires that no defendant in a diversity action be a citizen of the same 
state as any plaintiff"). As demonstrated below, this case satisfies the statutory 
requirement of complete diversity. 
(a) PlaintiffJane Doe is a citizen of Florida. (Am. Compl.  1.) 6
6 Jane Doe may, in fact, be a citizen of Georgia, not Florida, as she pled in her Amended 
Complaint,—See-tiew-Kor-lc-Rostriloh-1,4008-(reperting-thaterrhirwarinhr 
his state-court 
state-court guilty plea on June 30], Epstein was served with a copy of a lawsuit by 
Doe. who has since moved to another state."); Jane Doe Depo. at 77, 112 (indicating that 
7 
Lewis 'rein a 
30596244444044,Sunt 340, COCOMO Goa.% home. 33233 
70316 
EFTA00231019

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 8 of 100 
(13) Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen of the U.S. Virgin Islands.' 
(c) Defendant 
3. Defendant 
is a citizen of New York. (Am. Compl. ¶ 5.) 
was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity. 
"A non-diverse defendant who is fraudulently joined does not defeat 
diversity because his citizenship is excluded from the diversity calculus." Shenkar 
v. Money Warehouse, Inc., No. 07-20634-CIV, 2007 WL 3023531, at *1 (S.D. Fla. 
her twin sister lives with her mother in Georgia); Affidavit of 
at ¶ I (stating, "I am the mother and natural guardian for Jane Doe #1" with jurat executed 
in Georgia before a Georgia notary), DE 4-2, Jane Doe No. 1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-
80069-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Intervenor's Complaint, at ¶ 2 (filed by "Jane Doe's Mother" 
and stating that "Jane Doe's Mother is a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia."), 
I)E 5-2, Jane Doe No. I v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80069-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Petition for 
Removal of Disability of Non-Age, at ¶¶ 1, 2, 7 (filed "on behalf of S.D.G.," alleging that 
"The mother is 
, and her address is .... Ga.," and stating that 
"S.D.G. is also the unnamed party in a lawsuit filed by her father on her behalf in the 
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 08-80069, which was 
filed without the consent of the mother"), In re 
(Palm Beach Co. Family Ct.) 
. If this turns out to be the case, there 
is complete diversity, regardless of 
citizenship. Although the Eleventh Circuit 
has recently indicated that a district court may not conduct jurisdictional discovery under 
such circumstances, another division of this Court has since allowed it. Compare Lowery 
v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1215-16, 1221 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that 
jurisdictional discovery to determine citizenship upon removal is inappropriate), with 
Calixto v. BASF Constr. Chemicals, LLC, slip op., Case No. 07-60077-CIV-ZLOCH, 
2008 WL 1840717, *I (S.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2008) (ordering that parties "shall engage in 
jurisdictional discovery for the Court to determine the citizenship of BASF and whether it 
has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action"). 
7 
The Amended Complaint erroneously states that Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen of New 
York. 
8 
Lewis "rein n. 
3059 GWID AVINUI. Sum 340, Comm QomItasca 33133 
101319 
EFTA00231020

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 9 of 100 
Oct. 15, 2007) (Moreno, J.) (citing Riley v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 
Inc., 292 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002)); accord, e.g., Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 
590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (denying motion to remand where two resident 
defendants were joined for the fraudulent purpose of defeating federal jurisdiction). 
In this case, the plaintiff relies on her original allegations to support three causes of 
action against 
: civil conspiracy (Am. Comp!. II 20-23); Intentional 
Infliction of Emotional Distress (Am. Comp!. 
23-28); and civil RICO (Am. 
Compl. 11: 29-34). These allegations, however, do not support these claims, or 
any other theory of liability that would allow recovery against 
. Cf.
Parks v. The New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 477 (5th Cir. 1962) (observing 
that "determination of fraudulent joinder is to be based on whether there was a real 
intention on colorable grounds to procure a joint judgment") (emphasis added).8
(a)Nonresident defendants have a right of removal. 
The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. 
Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. 
Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the 
fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the 
----E4eventh-Gireuit-Geurt-ef-Appeels-adepted-as-binding-preeedent-aIl dwisiuns of 3ho 
former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 
9 
L.exylCrsin FL 
3039 Gomm Mout. Sum 340. Coccoon Goon, Fos 33133 
1@1311 
EFTA00231021

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 10 of 100 
[defendants] by . . . Congress"). In this case, by reconstituting her original federal 
lawsuit and refiling it in state Court, the plaintiff has clearly sought to avoid the 
strictures of the mandatory stay of this case that federal law requires under 18 
U.S.C. § 3509(k).9
In federal court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), this action must be 
automatically stayed pending final disposition of an ongoing parallel criminal 
action against Mr. Epstein. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (providing that a parallel civil 
9 
By filing in state court, the plaintiff's attorney has also evidently sought to avoid the 
clear command of our local rules forbidding public comment about the merits of a 
pending lawsuit. Compare S.D. Fla. Local Rule 77.2(7) ("A lawyer or law firm 
associated with a civil action shall not during its investigation or litigation make or 
participate in making an extrajudicial statement, other than a quotation from or reference 
to public records, which a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means 
of public communication if there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination will 
interfere with a fair trial and which relates to (a) Evidence regarding the occurrence or 
transaction involved. (b) The character . . . of a party . . . . (d) The lawyer's opinion as to 
the merits of the claims 
") 
with Ricci—Leopold Home Page, http:// 
www.riccilaw.com (click on "Breaking News," then access the hyperlink entitled, 
03/13/08 - Consumer Justice Attorney Ted Leopold Files Case to aid Jane Doe in seeking 
justice against sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. ) (describing character 
of party defendant Epstein as a "sexual predator" (a term defined by Florida criminal 
statutes) and quoting the plaintiff's attorney "Ted Leopold, managing partner" as 
characterizing Epstein as "an extremely powerful and wealthy man," with "vast 
resources," who acted "in the vilest way" at his "lavish mansion" with "lurid fantasies" 
and inflicting "untold damage," and opining that he should "be held accountable;" also 
quoting the plaintiff's attorney as opining that "[t]his case is both about justice and 
making sure that a wealthy and powerful man knows that he is not above the law;" also 
quoting the plaintiff's attorney's view of the evidence that plaintiff "continues to endure 
emotional trauma daily") (Web site last visited July 17, 2008). 
10 
1-1e3YARTeinn.
3059GasidoAvulut,Surri 340,CooNve Gaon. FLOMA 33133 
100311 
EFTA00231022

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 11 of 100 
action arising from an alleged sexual assault of a minor "shall be stayed until the 
end of all phases of [any] criminal action") (emphasis added). In this case, there is 
a parallel federal criminal grand jury action pending in the Southern District of 
Florida, In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla.), which arises out of 
the same allegations pled here. 
Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the 
plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. 
cf Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WI_ 517847, at *1-2 (ND. 
Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on 
grounds that "the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) is clear that a stay is required in 
a case . . . where a parallel criminal action is pending which arises from the same 
occurrence involving minor victims") (emphasis added). 
Even outside the context of a mandatory federal statute, "the Supreme Court 
[has] admonished [that] `the Federal courts should not sanction devices intended to 
prevent a removal to a Federal court where one has that right, and should be 
equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court.'" Legg, 428 
F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 
186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that "Congress 'did not extend [to defendants 
a right of removal] with one hand, and with the other give plaintiffs a bag of tricks 
11 
Lewis 'Minn. 
3059 Glow Am or. Sum 340. Cocis0 I Gwa.I Io6M 3)133 
11 01 716 
EFTA00231023

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 12 of 100 
to overcome it" (quoting McKinney v. Bd. of Trustees of Maryland Ono) Coll, 
955 F.2d 924, 928 (4th Cir. 1992))). 
To protect a nonresident defendant's right of removal, a federal court will 
"determine the matter of jurisdiction" by examining "the true situation both as to 
panics and causes of action." Bernblum v. Travelers' Inc. Co., 9 F. Supp. 34, 35 
( W.D. Mo. 1934) (emphasis added). See also id. (observing that "[t]he federal 
courts will . . . strike out the fiction injected into a case by a party to prevent 
removal"). In accordance with these principles, a plaintiff cannot destroy diversity 
jurisdiction simply by conjuring up a nondiverse defendant; there must be at least 
some "possibility that the state law might impose liability on [the nondiverse] 
defendant under the circumstances alleged in the complaint." Florence v. Crescent 
Res., LLC, 484 F.3d 1293, 1299 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). See also, 
Holloway v. Morrow, No. 07-0839-WS-M, 2008 WL 401305, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 
11, 2008) (emphasizing that "'Nile potential for legal liability must be reasonable, 
not merely theoretical" (quoting Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 n.5 (11th 
Cir. 2005))) (emphasis added). 
In this case, the plaintiffs have tried to whip Jane Doe's original, one-
defendant complaint into a froth that looks non-federal. Cf. Owens v. Swan, 962 F. 
Supp. 1436, 1439 (D. Utah 1997) (noting that "although plaintiffs' amended 
12 
1...evfitACCFin N. 
3059 Gumo Ave nue 
n 340, Cocewin Gaon, host" 33133 
t2 0311 
EFTA00231024

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 13 of 100 
complaint contains four claims for relief, the first and second claims state only one 
cause of action") (emphasis added). Using her original allegations and adding 
nothing, Jane Doe has tried to add claims against 
for civil 
conspiracy (Am. Compl. ¶1 20-23), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 
(Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24-28), and civil RICO (Compl. ¶¶ 29-34) in order to append a 
nondiverse defendant to her Complaint. These claims, however, are untenable 
under Jane Doe's own allegations, and therefore cannot be used to destroy 
diversity jurisdiction. 
(b) There is nopossibility that the plaintiff can establish a cause of 
action against 
under Florida law. 
(i) The conspiracy claim against 
must fail. 
As a general rule, "[a]n actionable conspiracy [under Florida law] requires 
an actionable underlying tort or wrong." Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 
(Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).10
10 
This case is governed by the general rule. Cf. Churruca v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 353 
So. 2d 547, 550 (Fla. 1977) (noting that while there is "ordinarily ... no independent ton 
for conspiracy," there is a narrow exception to this rule when "the plaintiff can show 
some peculiar power of coercion possessed by the conspirators by virtue of their 
combination") (emphasis added). See generally Liappas v. Augoustis, 47 So. 2d 582, 583 
(Fla. 1950) (observing that -'instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort 
are rare and should be added to with caution' (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d 
609, 611, (Mails. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, th;s Cat ;nvulvcs dic genera-rule, 
not the narrow exception, because only one person could have caused Jane Doe's 
injuries. CI Martin v. Marlin, 529 So. 2d 1174, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (upholding 
13 
LeNviA:Ein n. 
309 Gram Avow'. Sun( 340,Cocoito Gnm. ha/a:433133 
13 1315 
EFTA00231025